Author Topic: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION  (Read 786672 times)

Offline OnWithTheShow

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 349
  • Philadelphia, PA
  • Liked: 153
  • Likes Given: 27
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #760 on: 01/09/2018 02:51 am »
There are also several other reasons to simulate/leak a failure:

To try to get the owner/operator to reveal themselves by saying the satellite is healthy

To find a suspected leaker

To test the security in place around this mission

Offline old_sellsword

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 632
  • Liked: 531
  • Likes Given: 470
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #761 on: 01/09/2018 02:51 am »
...which would be SpaceX's fault since payload sep is the responsibility of the LV.

It wouldn’t actually, since NG provided the payload adapter.

Offline cscott

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3471
  • Liked: 2867
  • Likes Given: 726
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #762 on: 01/09/2018 02:52 am »
"Didn't separate and burned up with S2" doesn't quite compute for me.  S2 should be in a stable orbit before the separation attempt.  If the payload didn't separate, wouldn't they leave the S2 in orbit, at least until they had a chance to debug, diagnose, and attempt a fix?

The fact that S2 deorbited seems to indicate that separation was achieved.

Perhaps the leaked statement is explained by some problem during separation which succeeded in detaching the payload but left it tumbling or damaged in some way.  Makes sense for S2 to deorbit afterwards.  But again... why would the payload then deorbit and "burn up"?

The given statement only really makes sense if the fairing failed to separate.  That would prevent the payload from separating and cause underperformance which would lead to not achieving stable orbit.  Perhaps you'd also vent the S2 propellant tanks before the inevitable re-entry in this scenario, which would explain the S2 observations over Sudan.  But this explanation is directly contradicted by the SpaceX statement. They can't talk about the payload, but they could presumably talk about the performance of their fairing if that was at issue.

Something about all this doesn't add up.

It seems plausible that the delay in confirming fairing separation (perhaps caused by the fact that S2 operations were classified and firewalled from the public broadcast, or an uncorrelated telemetry dropout from S2) was spun into a rumor of fairing failure.  Someone's explanation of what would happen *if* the fairing failed to separate got turned into a whisper that that's what actually happened.  Such a whisper found its way to ready ears.
« Last Edit: 01/09/2018 03:04 am by cscott »

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 3429
  • Likes Given: 741
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #763 on: 01/09/2018 02:55 am »
...which would be SpaceX's fault since payload sep is the responsibility of the LV.

It wouldn’t actually, since NG provided the payload adapter.

Thanks, did not know that. Usually the launch vehicle provides the PLA. If NG provided it, then SpaceX would only be responsible for issuing the sep command.
« Last Edit: 01/09/2018 03:04 am by Kabloona »

Offline IanH84

  • Member
  • Posts: 67
  • Liked: 52
  • Likes Given: 33
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #764 on: 01/09/2018 02:57 am »
My personal hunch is that these failure rumors are incredibly convenient if the sat is some sort of recon or SIGINT bird.
I don't buy into conspiracy theories, but I think that there are cases where military and intelligence agencies have encouraged them to keep more realistic guesses from catching on and becoming the accepted explanation. With a few weeks until we should be able to see visible passes in the northern hemisphere if it's in the predicted orbit, that's plenty of time for rumors to run wild and make it more difficult to be certain of what "facts" originated where.

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #765 on: 01/09/2018 03:13 am »
...which would be SpaceX's fault since payload sep is the responsibility of the LV.

It wouldn’t actually, since NG provided the payload adapter.

Thanks, did not know that. Usually the launch vehicle provides the PLA. If NG provided it, then SpaceX would only be responsible for issuing the sep command.

Here's confirmation from Wired, November 2017

https://www.wired.com/story/spacexs-top-secret-zuma-mission-launches-today/

Quote
>
Veteran aerospace manufacturer Northrop Grumman built the payload, according to a document obtained by WIRED and later confirmed by the company. The company says it built Zuma for the US government, and its also providing an adapter to mate Zuma with SpaceXs Falcon 9 rocket. But thats where information starts tapering off.
>
« Last Edit: 01/09/2018 03:15 am by docmordrid »
DM

Offline sewebster

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 307
  • British Columbia
  • Liked: 190
  • Likes Given: 155
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #766 on: 01/09/2018 03:19 am »
The fact that S2 deorbited seems to indicate that separation was achieved.

Isn't that pre-programmed?

Offline MaxPower

  • Member
  • Posts: 3
  • PA
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 26
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #767 on: 01/09/2018 03:21 am »
"didn't separate and burned up with S2" doesn't quite compute for me.  S2 should be in a stable orbit before the separation attempt.  If the payload didn't separate, wouldn't they leave the S2 in orbit, at least until they had a chance to debug, diagnose, and attempt a fix?

The fact that S2 deorbited seems to indicate that separation was achieved.

Something about this doesn't add up.

I was just about to use my first post to ask that very question. I'm not an expert but I was under the impression S2 achieves the desired orbit, lets go of the payload and then fires its engine to deorbit. If that's the case, I fail to see why S2 would be deorbited as planned if the payload failed to detach as WSJ reported.

As for the theory this is some sort of "cover up" to hide that the payload was successfully deployed... perhaps its just me but I can't see SpaceX or NG agreeing to participate in such a scheme. Right now, it looks like one of them is responsible for losing an extremely expensive and very sensitive government satellite. That doesn't look good and could have a direct impact on the company responsible or both companies if nothing more concrete comes out about what exactly happened. Not to mention, wouldn't it be strange when neither company stands down or launches an investigation if we're being told one of them lost a really expensive taxpayer funded payload? That theory just seems a little tinfoil hat-ish to me.   


Offline jcm

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3622
  • Jonathan McDowell
  • Somerville, Massachusetts, USA
    • Jonathan's Space Report
  • Liked: 1290
  • Likes Given: 775
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #768 on: 01/09/2018 03:21 am »
If the mass of the payload were still attached SpaceX would have noted the inertial and CoG difference when the upper stage manoeuvred to de-orbit burn attitude.

Ben, do we know if the S2 deorbit burn is always done with live telemetry, as opposed to just happening under
onboard computer control while out of tracking range?
Also, even if they did note the issue, possible their ability to command at that stage is limited
-----------------------------

Jonathan McDowell
http://planet4589.org


Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 3429
  • Likes Given: 741
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #770 on: 01/09/2018 03:24 am »
The fact that S2 deorbited seems to indicate that separation was achieved.

Isn't that pre-programmed?

Yes, but on a typical launch vehicle the flight computer waits for confirmation of successful sep from microswitches on the payload adapter before doing a collision/contamination avoidance maneuver and then de-orbiting. If it doesn't get confirmation of sep, it wouldn't continue the sequence.
« Last Edit: 01/09/2018 03:27 am by Kabloona »

Offline dansoton

  • Member
  • Posts: 12
  • Vancouver, Canada
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 339
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #771 on: 01/09/2018 03:27 am »
Quote
A U.S. official and two congressional aides, all familiar with the launch, said on condition of anonymity that the second-stage of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 booster rocket failed. The satellite was lost, one of the congressional aides said, and the other said both the satellite and the second-stage satellite fell into the ocean after the failure.

Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-09/spacex-launched-satellite-isn-t-seen-in-orbit-pentagon-says (emphasis above added).

I thought this was worth posting, even though I agree about speculating in an echo chamber, because this new article is quite specific about the sources the article's author has for this. For the articles posted at least, it doesn't appear to be one article simply repeating claims from another.

Now as to the highlighted part, I tend to think this is ambiguous wording and as if there was a failure of payload separation for example, it's highly likely a fault with the payload adapter (which SpaceX did not provide, or likely mount??) as I can't recall a similar payload separation failure for SpaceX.

If that was the case SpaceX wouldn't be at fault which lines up with SpaceX's statement. That's the only failure I can think of that lines up with that quote, SpaceX's statement and other reports of sightings in its intended location.
« Last Edit: 01/09/2018 04:46 am by dansoton »

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 3429
  • Likes Given: 741
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #772 on: 01/09/2018 03:33 am »
If it was a separation failure, a congressional aide isn't necessarily going to know that the payload adapter in this case was NG's responsibility, not SpaceX's. So I'd still believe SpaceX's statement that F9 performed nominally. In that case, SpaceX is only responsible for providing the separation signal. If the payload adapter failed to separate properly after receiving the sep command, that's on NG.
« Last Edit: 01/09/2018 03:37 am by Kabloona »

Offline yokem55

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 653
  • Oregon (Ore-uh-gun dammit)
  • Liked: 468
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #773 on: 01/09/2018 03:34 am »
Quote
A U.S. official and two congressional aides, all familiar with the launch, said on condition of anonymity that the second-stage of SpaceX’s Falcon 9 booster rocket failed. The satellite was lost, one of the congressional aides said, and the other said both the satellite and the second-stage satellite fell into the ocean after the failure.

Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-09/spacex-launched-satellite-isn-t-seen-in-orbit-pentagon-says

I thought this was worth posting, even though I agree with speculating in an echo chamber, because this new article is quite specific about the sources the article's author has for this. For the articles posted at least it doesn't appear to be one article repeating claims from another.

Now as to the highlighted part, I tend to think this is ambiguous wording and as if there was a failure of payload separation for example, it's highly likely a fault with the payload adapter (which SpaceX did not provide, or likely mount??) as I can't recall a similar payload separation failure for SpaceX.

If that was the case SpaceX wouldn't be at fault which lines up with SpaceX's statement. That's the only failure I can think of that lines up with that quote, SpaceX's statement and other reports of sightings in its intended location.
The Bloomberg article also has a named source from Space Command stating that they in fact don't have another satellite to track. If that is the case, what is USA 280 mentioned upthread?

Offline dansoton

  • Member
  • Posts: 12
  • Vancouver, Canada
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 339
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #774 on: 01/09/2018 03:38 am »
If it was a separation failure, a congressional aide isn't going to know that the payload adapter in this case was NG's responsibility, not SpaceX's. So I'd still believe SpaceX's statement that F9 performed nominally. In that case, SpaceX is only responsible for providing the separation signal. If the payload adapter failed to separate properly after receiving the sep command, that's on NG.

Exactly, and that's my current thinking of what's happened based on trying to triangulate all the reported and sourced information to date, and not just our discussions here. New reports can easily change things however.

Offline Kabloona

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4846
  • Velocitas Eradico
  • Fortress of Solitude
  • Liked: 3429
  • Likes Given: 741
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #775 on: 01/09/2018 03:41 am »
The Bloomberg article also has a named source from Space Command stating that they in fact don't have another satellite to track. If that is the case, what is USA 280 mentioned upthread?

It was a typical non-answer. He said, "We have nothing to add to the satellite catalog at this time," which isn't what was asked. It allows the possibility that USA 280 was added to the catalog earlier, (then deleted ?), and thus "there is nothing to add at this time."
« Last Edit: 01/09/2018 03:44 am by Kabloona »

Offline docmordrid

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6334
  • Michigan
  • Liked: 4207
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #776 on: 01/09/2018 03:47 am »
>The Bloomberg article also has a named source from Space Command stating that they in fact don't have another satellite to track. If that is the case, what is USA 280 mentioned upthread?

Well - this guy is an astronomer at Harvard-Smithsonian, so FWIW....

https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/950559247959494657

Jonathan McDowell ✔ @planet4589
Space-Track has cataloged the Zuma payload as USA 280, international designation 2018-001A. Catalog number 43098.
No orbit details given. No reentry date given, but for a secret payload it might not be. Implication is Space-Track thinks it completed at least one orbit
9:45 PM - Jan 8, 2018
DM

Offline Bubbinski

Congratulations to SpaceX for the Zuma launch and first stage landing. Let’s see if any further sightings or TLE’s show up of USA 280 before we bury this mission. If there were indeed a serious issue that happened with the Falcon 9 rocket itself I’d think we’d be hearing about a stand down or delay in subsequent missions, haven’t seen that so far.
I'll even excitedly look forward to "flags and footprints" and suborbital missions. Just fly...somewhere.

Offline TripD

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 872
  • Peace
  • Liked: 851
  • Likes Given: 677
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #778 on: 01/09/2018 03:51 am »
All of this brings up a question.  Allowing for this worst case scenario, how in the world would a 2nd stage burn even manage to guide the 'satelite' and 2nd stage into the atmosphere?  Wouldn't the rocket just spin about the new center of gravity?

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3629
  • 92129
  • Liked: 1146
  • Likes Given: 360
Re: SpaceX F9 : Zuma : January 7/8, 2018, CCAFS : DISCUSSION
« Reply #779 on: 01/09/2018 03:51 am »
I don't know who started the rumor but it may have been started as a method to "disappear" the Zuma spacecraft. Even if so, and true or false, I doubt the rumor will ever be officially confirmed.

Looks like I was wrong, in part, or maybe the confirmations of loss don't count as official. Still, the spacecraft is fast disappearing as though it were never launched. That is very close to being the same as the blanket of secrecy that has wrapped Zuma since it first appeared on the manifest. Conspiracy, sure. Or maybe disinformation, or maybe the truth. Whatever, it seems that Zuma is no longer on the table.

If it is hiding somewhere in space how will we ever know? A maneuvering spacecraft with an unknown fuel supply could go to a lot of places.
Retired, working interesting problems

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0